May 10, 2006

Here's a sentence I just wrote: "The reason Taylor reminds you of Clinton and the reason it was especially noticeable last night is because both men are echoing Elvis."

Should "is" be "are"? I think it would sound ridiculous, but rule-based thinking would say yes.

John -- my son, John Althouse Cohen -- responds:

I think it can only be "is," even if you're using "rule-based thinking." "Are" would just be comical. It would remind me of the scene in "After Hours" where Griffin Dunne says:

So I march right in there to apologize, but she'd already killed herself. I was too late. He was about to give me the money, when all of a sudden, his phone rang. His girlfriend killed herself tonight. Is that a coincidence? No, because the same girl who I came downtown to see was dead, too. That's because they're the same person. They're both dead.

The point is: He was joking by using the plural and saying, "They're both dead." You can't use "both" in reference to one person. And in your sentence, there's only one reason; it just serves two functions.

Here's another analogy: "George Harrison was the guitarist and singer in 'Here Comes the Sun.'" By inverting that, you automatically get, "The guitarist and singer in 'Here Comes the Sun' was George Harrison." It would be absurd to use "were" instead of "was" in either of those sentences. It doesn't matter whether "George Harrison" comes first in the sentence; the grammar is still the same. "...are George Harrison" is just as ungrammatical as "George Harrison are..."

Incidentally, you should change "because" to "that." Look up "the reason is because" in any usage book.

However, the passage was written in a way that caused one to believe that it had been two seperate individuals, until the very end of the passage. To suddenly change from the plural to the singular would overshadow the jarring realization that the writer is trying to instill.

But both PatCa and Sippican leap over the process of combining the two things that were joined by "and." Explain the missing step. Don't just tell me that you ended up there. The reason Taylor reminds you of Clinton is one thing and the reason it was especially noticeable last night is another. I mean, I get the answer, but I just want recognition of the fact that it made sense to stop and ask the question.

Like tommy I am not qualified in any way to crticize another's grammer, etc. My sister, OTOH, does it to the point of annoyance.

I had a grad school advisor (science) who would not let you use the word "it" ever. "What is 'it'?" I understood his basic point on behalf of clarity but *IT* was no fun going through my 80 page thesis looking for *IT*.

Sippican: I don't see it as a parenthetical. So, again, show your work!

The phrases are two different things: the noticeability of Elvisness last night is not the same thing as the similarity of Hicks and Clinton to Elvis. A true parenthetical would be something like: The similarity of Hicks and Clinton to Elvis, their resemblance to The King, etc....

Again, I'm not arguing for "are," just saying it's more difficult than you're admitting.

The reason Taylor reminds you of Clinton and the reason it was especially noticeable last night is because both men are echoing Elvis.You are tying two separate reasons together into one. I don't think they are parenthetical; however, one is definitely a subset of the other. The reason ...the reason <=> both men are echoing. Whether you should use is or are seems ambiguous here, you have two items in the subject slot and a single item in the predicate adjective slot. If you don't want to collapse the two subjects together, is probably is what I would use as it anticipates the ending of the sentence.

I have a new insight into the problem, inspired by Tommy's comment. The problem is that "the reason it was especially noticeable last night" shouldn't be in the sentence at all. "The reason it was especially noticeable last night" is NOT "because both men are echoing Elvis." "The reason it was especially noticeable last night" was that they were doing Elvis songs.

I should have written something like: "The reason Taylor reminds you of Clinton is because both men are echoing Elvis. It was especially noticeable last night because they were doing Elvis songs."

To do it as one sentence, and to make it into that elusive parenthetical, it could be: "The reason Taylor reminds you of Clinton -- especially noticeable last night -- is because both men are echoing Elvis."

Dave: I recall the linguist John McWhorter writing an essay in which he argued that the emphasis on grammatical rules has resulted in people being unable to write clearly. His view seems to be that languages evolve over time, and that insisting there are hard and fast rules results in stultifying prose.

I think this is true when the rule being enforced is the rule because its the rule that has always been the rule. The key to clearer writing is not to deemphasize grammar but to understand why a given rule exists and then decide whether the rule is appropriate or necessary in any given case. Here, I think John is right: using "is" makes the sentence clearer by acknowledging that there is only one "reason" at hand.

But there are other cases where strictly enforcing grammar can stifle innovation and efficiency and ultimately make language less clear. For example, in Black English you might find a phrase like "he be going" which violates standard English grammar rules. The phrase does not mean, as some might assume, "he is going" or "he goes". Rather, "he be going" says something about the aspect of the verb that the standard variants do not; it means "he goes all the time" which is basically the invention of the present imperfect aspect in English.

So, I'd say thoughtful consideration and application of grammar rules is healthy for clarity in writing. Its the thoughtless do-it-this-way-just-because-thats'-the-way-its-done attitude towards grammar that may stultify prose.

The use of "is" instead of "are" hasn't violated any rules. The "is" in the sentence refers to "The reason", not the modifying phrase, "Taylor reminds you of Clinton and the reason it was especially noticeable last night" (which is where things get tricky since you modify the modifying phrase (sort of like my bad habit of parentheticals within parentheticals (which of course this parenthetical is an example of))).

Which is all a roundabout way to state, good grammar does not automatically equal good sense, and poor grammar doesn't automatically equal poor sense.

But maybe the original sentence you wrote really depends on what your definition of "is", is.

(you really didn't think you were going to get through this comment thread without someone bringing up that chestnut, did you?)

Ann,Here, for what it's worth, is my suggestion (close to your 6:37 comment): "The reason Taylor reminds you of Clinton--and the reason it was especially noticeable last night--is that both men are echoing Elvis."

And as far as the suggestion to replace "because" with "that", eliminating any word between "is" and "both" in the original sentence would probably be best, and wouldn't change the sense of the statement in any manner.

Which suggests a different interpretation in how to read the whole sentence entirely, "The reason Taylor reminds you of Clinton, and the reason it was especially noticeable last night, they both echo Elvis".

Then the first part is all adjectival phrase modifying the real subject of the sentence which is "they", and the main verb, rather than being passive, is active (which many prefer).

(the editor in me likes that best, without completely reworking everything, as Prof. Althouse already has done with a previous post in this thread)

Which grammar rule are we most comfortable ignoring? I find myself splitting infinitives all the time. Sometimes I self-correct, but it often sounds more stilted now to follow slavishly the rule.

Maxine - I think "scrambled eggs" is a dish, so it's singular. But there are 3 eggs in the dish! You'll get really confused if you read the Brits, who treat companies/teams as plural: "Arsenal are on pace to win it all. The management are considering..."

A related linguistic quirk: it seems like "a lot (of ...)" should be singular, but it's always treated as plural: "A lot of commenters were saying..." Technically not correct, but it sounds a lot better than "A lot of commenters was saying..."

"A related linguistic quirk: it seems like "a lot (of ...)" should be singular, but it's always treated as plural: "A lot of commenters were saying..." Technically not correct, but it sounds a lot better than "A lot of commenters was saying..."

"A Lot" is troublesome. If you replaced it with "every single one" you'd have singular.

"Many" = plural.

How much is "a lot" ??? If it's the whole thing....then it's every single one.

I love this blog. The comments and the images they conjure up would make an interesting art project. "is is" --> Isis --> became a god because 'it' figured out the resolution of the 'is is' conundrum --> Clinton is Isis --> anachronistic joke --> ?

"The reason Taylor reminds you of Clinton and the reason it was especially noticeable last night is because both men are echoing Elvis."

Maxine is correct, also. The sentence is constructed with faulty grammar, noted by the omission of "that" in strategic places violating parallel construction which would, if used, have clarified that we are talking about one event (is because).

If I got that in a paper, I would correct it as follows:"The reason Taylor reminds you of Clinton--and the reason it was especially noticeable last night--is because both men are echoing Elvis." So, intent counts and reasonable inference, too.

Victor Hugo dumps his manuscript, Les Miserables, on his publisher's desk. He can't stand the tension of waiting to see if it sells or tanks, so he goes out to the country to wait it out. He sends a letter to the publishing consisting of only the symbol ?

You might enjoy my favorite grammar book, The Deluxe Transitive Vampire: A Handbook of Grammar for the Innocent, the Eager and the Doomed, by Karen Elizabeth Gordon. It's grammar Edward Gorey style, but substance is not sacrificed for appearance.

Interesting thread, like so many here. One thing that was endearing was John calling the esteemed Prof. Althouse "mom". I often forget that she has other personae (ok, the dictionary says "personas", but it is derived from Latin). Then Ann goes on and uses the word "kinda" in a thread on grammar. Great.

With all due respects, you (Althouse/Cohens) must have interesting family discussions, if you can be debating grammar like this, in the midst of even more esoteric topics.

In any case, I have appologized more than once to my daughter for her being born into a family where everyone seems to have a pet peeve as to proper grammar. My mother's was the use of "who" or "whom" instead of "that" when referring to people. Mine would probably be use of the nominative case with "be" verbs and the subjunctive mood. My father is a fewer/lesser person. Her mother is a comma fanatic. If my daughter turns out anything like John did, it will be interesting to see where she will be able to catch the rest of us.

My opinion is that "is" is better than "are" here because "because both men are echoing Elvis" informs us that it is a single reason.

Bruce: I know the feeling. My mother was an English teacher before she was a lawyer. Ugh! Corrected constantly! Unfortunately, I paid little attention.

A friend's mother (who hailed from England) used to correct us if we referred to anyone by the pronouns he or she rather than their proper name. You'd say "She said blah blah blah" and her mother would jump in with "She being the cat's mother?" I thought that was so cute.

There's also the great quote by Winston Churchill on strict adherence to rules of grammar: "This is the sort of writing, up with which we should not put." (from memory, not sure if it's a true story or if that's the exact wording)